Toyota 86 to get power boost with 2015 refresh

[campy]

Originally Posted by regal

But just think how awesome this car would be without the torque dip.

You're a $600 header away from removing it.

[tennisfreak]

^

Exactly. I want to finish modding the FRS I already bought and be happy with it.

I am already quite satisfied with the improvements on the little bit I have done so far. Once I complete the headers and tune I feel confident this little car will be more than enough to make me completely satisfied.

[chrisl]

Originally Posted by ydooby

A 2.5L H-6 with a 8000+rpm redline please!

The base Cayman engine is pretty close to that - 2.7L H-6 with 275hp@7400. That would be a fun engine in a FR-S/BRZ

[bilen]

Originally Posted by snoflewis

still don't see this upgrade happening. maybe an upgrade option in the form of a TRD supercharger, but even then, i dont see a significant power boost throughout this generation. maybe a 5-10 hp boost like the rsx type-s and s2000 got in the later years. larger displacement would affect sales in europe and asian countries where taxes would shoot up. hybrid just seems out of the question due to price.

just find it funny how people keep demanding more power at this price range. can't have everything in one package. if we were talking about a 35k+ car...yes definitely, but at this price range, the car that's currently out right now is quite remarkable. certain aspects of this car (ie. low center of gravity, road feel, handling, RWD) you can't find in any other car in the price range. the thing that's the most easily upgradeable in the aftermarket is what this car lacks most. that's a better platform in all aspects than say a car that needs better handling or weight reduction.

I don't think many european countries have a penalty above 2 l. I know Italy has it but not Netherlands, Germany and Sweden to name a few. In Sweden it increases with CO2 but linearly.
In Sweden we are not allowed to change anything which means exhaust, header or changing brakes to decrease weight are a no go. Hence a factory option/upgrade would be very welcome.
I woul like 2.2-2.5 and a bit more charisma/soul in the engine/intake/exhaust.
And a weightloss of 100-200 pounds depending of how much hp increases. (Tada has alredy said he has a vehicle with - 200 pounds?) though to be difficult I still need the back seats.
And for my taste, I woul like to be able to order without large spoilers/wings or small for that matter.

In my dream world I would love a 6-cyl option, and since dream maybe an inch or two more legroom in backseat since i need to be able to fit two reversed child seats. Though when kids are older i would gladly buy smaller vehicle again. Though idon't see these happening.

[Leepox]

Well I just want to see these numbers:

220whp
190 lb/ft torque

from a N/A engine.

All the other options would just destroy the essence of this car. Bigger engine/turbo/hybrid system should just be something they need to think about for the new Supra (yes they need to make a new one). I don't see it sticking to this price point if they did these upgrades, but I don't see why they won't do it given how the GTR just kept on getting more expensive every iteration.

[DylanFRS]

I thought the whole point in the car was a budget light-weight sports car.

[Leepox]

Originally Posted by DylanFRS

I thought the whole point in the car was a budget light-weight sports car.

that is true. I guess they will keep on selling the base package and the 2015 package albeit at a higher price?

[Rayme]

Originally Posted by Superhatch

So larger motor = less weight? Ok.

.5 L = 40hp? Ok.

If they move to a 2.5 it's not going to just be a bored FA20. Also, w/o any improvements to the head/header/exhaust I don't see a 40hp gain from just boring .5L. And even then they won't have a high flow aftermarket type exhaust system. I don't think they have a high revving 2.5L on the market currently (everything is 6.5K or below).

Revving another 1K will take some testing and a larger piston will mean a redesigned piston, rod, maybe crank? If this thing ever comes to fruition (which I don't see happening) it's going to cost more money, have less mpg, and I think you would maybe see 20hp max w/o a significant exhaust redesign, which also means more cost.

I don't think that moving to a 2.5L would be enough for me to sell my car and hop in a newer model.

To make a 2.5 high reving while keeping the same bore (86mm) would be too hard/expensive. Mean piston speed, kind of a law of internal combustion engines. If they're too keep the same block and bump the stroke, the rev limiter will be less than the current fa20.

[WolfpackS2k]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

Where did I say that? We were talking about safety features (Traction Control) and what I said fully supports your idea that cars were less safe fifty years ago for a number of reasons.

I guess your point is that it isn't dangerous to drive this car sans traction control? That's a flame war I'm tired of.

Nah, haha. I wasn't saying the car's safer without TC. I was saying that the traffic death rate was higher in the 60s b/c of the lack of safety features, not b/c of the cars' power levels. In your previous post I thought you were arguing that the sports cars of yore were more dangerous, partially b/c of their power output. If not the case sorry for the confusion.

[WolfpackS2k]

Originally Posted by Leepox

Well I just want to see these numbers:

220whp
190 lb/ft torque

from a N/A engine.

All the other options would just destroy the essence of this car. Bigger engine/turbo/hybrid system should just be something they need to think about for the new Supra (yes they need to make a new one). I don't see it sticking to this price point if they did these upgrades, but I don't see why they won't do it given how the GTR just kept on getting more expensive every iteration.

What is your opinion on a positive displacement supercharger? That maintains the characteristics of an NA engine.

[SVTSHC]

from 200 to 250-260 NA huh? I like it, I'd definitely only do bolt-ons and a tune with that sort of horse.

Now the real question is do I pull the trigger on a 2014 FRS or wait ANOTHER year for the revised 2015 model.... hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[thill]

Originally Posted by SVTSHC

from 200 to 250-260 NA huh? I like it, I'd definitely only do bolt-ons and a tune with that sort of horse.

Now the real question is do I pull the trigger on a 2014 FRS or wait ANOTHER year for the revised 2015 model.... hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

If you feel this car absolutely needs more power then I say wait.

[Steve201brz]

im not a businessman so forgive me if i come across dumb, wouldn't be the first time.
the refresh for 2015 is announced, but does that make it official? countless times i've seen business's or car company's delay production/model changes etc. granted, it's usually with higher end performance vehicles.
my main question would be whether this refresh is a set in stone type of thing that is gaurenteed in the 2015 models, or does it have the possibility to be pushed back until 2016 or further

[WolfpackS2k]

Originally Posted by Steve201brz

im not a businessman so forgive me if i come across dumb, wouldn't be the first time.
the refresh for 2015 is announced, but does that make it official? countless times i've seen business's or car company's delay production/model changes etc. granted, it's usually with higher end performance vehicles.
my main question would be whether this refresh is a set in stone type of thing that is gaurenteed in the 2015 models, or does it have the possibility to be pushed back until 2016 or further

No there is nothing official in this.